New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

I might have mentioned this a couple times, but you're a moron. If you want to be honest and forthcoming and state that you would rather a KNOWN completely corrupt politican over Trump, that is fine. But just admit that she would be one of the most corrupt presidents this nation would ever have. As bad as Trump is, he doesnt have a documented trail of corruption in his wake. If the sides were turned, you would denounce Trump over this all day long. Its just sad Democrats would put her over Sanders. And yes, this includes YOU. Clinton was not the sole person running for the Democratic ticket.

The sad thing is you find this completely irrelevant .. as if this is something new. State secrets have been around since the dawn of time. Protecting these interests have always been a top priority. If one can not protect them, then they should not have access to them. Electronic security is nothing new. It might be to you, but for anyone that high up in the government, it is not. She knew the risks. And for you to say that she didnt only highlights her incompetence. So which is it? Is she incompetent or is she reckless? Neither are presidential traits.

 

Well I won't say what I think of you but given how you started this post I didn't read past the this sentence. If you want to debate do it respectably or you are wasting your time.

 

MAGA... TRUMP.

 

Not really. She was offered the same system setup that Obama had, but refused to comply with the policies around it.

 

If by no one you mean the FBI, New York Times, NARA, The State Dept IG, Guccifer, and House Democrats, (as well as every single reporter that ever asked Clinton a question about this scandal) ...

...you'll excuse me if I beg to differ.

 

What makes her better than Johnson, in your mind?

I bring this up because there is definitely a third option, for anyone who feels backed into the first two.

 

Or the Green Party for that matter...

If EVER there was a time for voters to put their money where their mouth is about the corruption of the 2 party system, it is THIS YEAR.

 

It depends on how Johnson is doing in the polls. If he looks to have a reasonable chance, great. But I'm not going to give the election to someone who is way less qualified than Clinton. And you guys can rag on Clinton about the email issue all you want- cry about the justice system, decry how horrible Clinton is, point out that she should be in jail- go ahead, feel free. At the end of the day, you still have Trump.

 

Johnson ain't all that great, either.

 

Because my primary goal is to first prevent Trump from gaining the office. Also I think the green party is too liberal. Johnson doesn't have a realistic platform - he's going to cut taxes and save social security? Yeah good luck with that.

 

So just say you are a partisan hack that is incapable of an unbiased opinion on the issue. I mean, most people assume that about you anyway when you drone on with nonsense. I want Trump defeated as much as you do, but it doesn't bias my opinion when it comes to someone mishandling classified information.

 

You want to label me a partisan hack because you like to put people into boxes that makes your world easier for you, Bobby. If you think I am a partisan hack ask Sam Fischer if he thinks I am one. You say I have a biased opinion simply because I disagree with you. But what you don't know is that I tend to support whistleblowers and am uncomfortable with the way Obama has been going after them so hard for leaking classfied materials. But you don't care because it's much easier to just label me a partisan hack.

Glad you take what I wrote out of context - good job.

 

(Bush did a horrible job for going after Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 911. There may have been no ISIS if Bush didn't start the Iraq war).

The new war? Which new war? I very much doubt ISIS and other terrorists are fighting with 1's and 0's. They aren't that technologically sophisticated. You are probably thinking of Russia, China or others?

 

I dont think you're missing the point. I think you are trolling. I never alluded that terrorist organizations were using cyber warfare. I stated with 9/11, we started taking domestic terrorism very seriously, just as with the security breaches of 2010, we started taking classified content and networks very serious (prior to this, we did not).

 

This is what I quoted...your words.

I responded the following entities obviously did care in one manner or another.

NARA
Guccifer
House Democrats
The New York Times
State Department Inspector General
FBI
Numerous reporters

What "context" did I miss? Your suggestion is the entire email scandal was a partisan attack on Clinton by Republicans.

How did Republicans manipulate all of these entities into doing their bidding and caring about Hillary's conduct re: Her private email server?



p.s. By the way, I missed some people who "cared" about Hillary's private email server....that being...and I quote James Comey here:

Hostile Actors... i.e. OUR ENEMIES.

 

Not trolling.

I wasn't clear and thus asked the question.

Yes, we took 'cyber warfare' very seriously. You can thanks the Obama administration for much of that. And yes, that can be the new war of future wars.

 

Yes, and "partisan witch hunt" implies that the only reason was partisanship, which is accurate in this case.

Yes, that's why I used that term.

No, it is exactly the truth.

Yes, in the other instance, there was no evidence at all because they deleted all of the email before anyone could have a look.

Yes, after the GOP spent years desperately combing through emails just to try and find something, ANYTHING that they could use to try and derail the upcoming presidential bid.

Again, evidence that doesn't exist in the previous administration because they deleted 700 times as many emails in order to avoid any such complications.

 

We don't know that the server the Bush administration used had "full time security," we don't know anything about that one at all.

Yes, and we can't learn about the Bush administration's potential mishandling because they just deleted 22 million emails.

Not partisanship on my part, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

 

Hilarious. I have been in IT for over two decades, it is likely that I understand computing far better than you ever will.

I'm not talking about Reagan, I'm talking about the immediately previous administration and the two SecStates before Clinton, not exactly the Dark Ages.

Yes, in ways very similar to, but less egregiously bad than the last administration's handling of email.

I'm aware that your partisanship causes you to want things that would make it difficult for Clinton to be elected president. You don't have to restate it.

Bull-effing-****. Nixon directed people to commit felonies (with intent, even) and then used his governmental power to try and cover it up. If you honestly think Clinton holds a candle to Nixon's misdeeds, then your partisanship is far more pervasive than I previously believed.

Bullsh!t. Democrats don't care for witch hunts, and that is sadly what the GOP has been reduced to over the last 28 years or so. They can't win at the ballot box, so they just have to make $hit up and investigate until they find something, ANYTHING with which to disparage their opponents.

My integrity is solid. I won't vote for Clinton OR Trump this year and I get to point and laugh at the people who do. You know, like yourself.

 

What they found was evidence that Hillary is unfit for the office of SOS much less POTUS.

You are comparing her to a administration you hate which should say all that needs to be said.

Glad your not voting for her she is unfit to serve.